Verisign issued its fifth and last chapter in its five part series “New gTLD Security, Stability, Resiliency Update: Exploratory Consumer Impact Analysis”; issues related to security, stability, and resilience of the DNS ecosystem, particularly as we approach the rollout of new gTLDs. ”
Bottom line Verisign Concluded with:
“The mechanical capability to delegate a vast quantity of new gTLDs exists, but we strongly believe using this facility could undermine the stability of the DNS ecosystem. That is, it’s important to not conflate our current ability to expedite delegations with the advisability of such action, as multiple organizations have issued specific advice around this distinction for quite some time.”
Here is the rest of the summary of the last of 5 posts on the issue a posted on the company blog:
“We highlighted a number of issues that we believe are outstanding and need to be resolved before the safe introduction of new gTLDs can occur – and we tried to provide some context as to why, all the while continuously highlighting that nearly all of these unresolved recommendations came from parties in addition to Verisign over the last several years.
We received a good bit of flack from a small number of folks asking why we’re making such a stink about this, and we’ve attempted to meter our tone while increasing our volume on these matters. Of course, we’re not alone in this, as a growing list of others have illustrated, e.g., SSAC SAC059’s Conclusion, published just a little over 90 days ago, illustrates this in part:
The SSAC believes that the community would benefit from further inquiry into lingering issues related to expansion of the root zone as a consequence of the new gTLD program. Specifically, the SSAC recommends those issues that previous public comment periods have suggested were inadequately explored as well as issues related to cross-functional interactions of the changes brought about by root zone growth should be examined. The SSAC believes the use of experts with experience outside of the fields on which the previous studies relied would provide useful additional perspective regarding stubbornly unresolved concerns about the longer-term management of the expanded root zone and related systems.
As discussed previously, the ICANN Board did resolve on May 18, 2013, to undertake a study on naming collisions and their potential impacts.
At the most recent ICANN meeting in Durban, South Africa, Lyman Chapin, Jeff Moss, and a number of other folks presented some of the preliminary findings from the study during the SSR Panel Session (you can find the audio here and some of the slides used here).…
